Archives

We the People Act(HR 3893 IH)March 4, 2004
To limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes.
Mr. PAUL (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland) introduced the bill in the 108th Congress and needs to be introduced in the 109th Congress.

Friday, January 28

Why Can't Christians Agree With The Apostle Paul, And Jefferson On The Fundamental Purposes Of Government?

Why Can't Christians Agree With The Apostle Paul, And Jefferson On The Fundamental Purposes Of Government?

Christians, of all people, should know the difference between good and evil. They should know that the fundamental purpose of government, as described in Romans 13, is expounded upon in the Declaration of Independence, and Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. They should know the difference between politicians who use religious (2 Tim 3:1-5), and pro-life rhetoric to get elected, and those who really are pro-life, and pro-Constitution. It should go without saying, that voting should be based on the commands of the Creator who granted those inalienable rights, and revealed those self-evident truths.

ROMANS 2:13

(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;) 16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Romans 2:14 & 15 refers to those who didn't have the law of Moses in written form, but did have some vestige of the morallaw in their hearts. The law written on their hearts when combined with reason was sufficient to guide their actions, and their conscience judged their compliance. Those without the written revelation and those rejecting the written revelation know the vast difference between good and evil. One of the major objections atheists have against the existence of a good God is the presence of pervasive evil. How do they know what evil is without knowing what good is? Devoutly secular nations based upon the atheology of communism have laws derived from second half of the Jewish, and Christian Decalogue governing human relations. Covetousness prohibited by the Tenth Commandment can be punishable under criminal conspiracy laws, if the covetousness leads to actions that would constitute a crime when committed.

ROMANS 12:9

"….Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good. 14 Bless them which persecute you: bless, and curse not. 17 Recompense to no man evil for evil….19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink…. 21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good."

Christians have the "work of the law written in their hearts," and accept the written record of Moses. Christians should know the difference between good and evil. God is far more capable than any human of repaying evil, and has many means of doing so. He takes the burden of personal vengeance from Christians, and in some cases places that burden on government, as the 13th chapter of Romans reveals. John Locke in his Second Treatise Of Government recognized that a community of people were far better able to protect their "life, liberty and property" by consenting to government formed for those purposes rather than living in a state of anarchy.

ROMANS 13:1 "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."

Romans 13:1 includes the governing officials themselves when it states "every soul." Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament [1] contains some notes that help clarify this verse. "Every soul….As in…. (every man). To the higher powers…. Abstract for concrete. See Mark 2:10…. Huperecw is an old verb to have or hold over, to be above or supreme, as in 1 Peter 2:13."

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. 2:15 For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:"

The "rulers" are "ordained" "ministers of God" to be a "terror to evil" by "executing wrath upon those that do evil." In verses 3, and 4 of Romans 13 the terms ‘good,’ and ‘evil’ are used three times. Verse 9 describes "evil" by repeating the second half of the Decalogue found in Exodus 20:13-17, and Deuteronomy 5:17-21. The latter part of verse 9, and verse 10 describes "good." Is murder good, or evil? Genesis 9:6 "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." If murder is evil, then mass murder isn’t good. Proverbs 6:16-17 "These six things the Lord hates, Yes, seven are an abomination to Him...hands that shed innocent blood…." Why do Christians vote for politicians who claim that America isn’t ready to discard the law-breaking opinion of Roe[2], when thirty states are ready to?[3] Are these pro-life states not part of America? Why do Christians praise, and vote for politicians who claim that Roe v Wade is "settled law;" when there is nothing lawful, or Biblical about that unconstitutional opinion?[4] The words of Amos need to be repeatedly repeated in our Christianized, but lawless culture: Amos 5:14,15 "Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the LORD,the God of hosts, shall be with you, as ye have spoken. Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate…."

Some federal judges, and politicians act as though they are above the law once they take office; but Paul is not arguing for the divine right kings, or the divine right of a federal judicial oligarchy. The "higher power" in the United States is the Constitution. Article 6, Paragraph 2 states,"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…." The majority opinion of a federal court isn’t listed here, or anywhere else in the Constitution, as being equivalent with, or superior to the written Constitution. Congress is the law making branch, not the federal courts! In paragraph 3 we find, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…." Additionally, the President is held to an even higher standard in Article 2, Section 1: "…he shall take the following oath or affirmation:-- ""…I…will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."" Section 3 states that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Nowhere does the Constitution state that he shall take care that "federal court orders" be faithfully executed.

No one is bound to support the unconstitutional majority opinions emanating from federal courts! Their decisions are confined to the parties involved according to the specifics of the particular case. Law by definition is a rule binding on people generally, not just upon individuals who happen to be parties to a case. Congress and state legislatures are the law making branches, not the federal courts. Federal courts have no authority to break laws made "in Pursuance" of the Constitution.

Not only did God ordain the written Constitution, but so did the people as stated in the Preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to…establish justice…secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Amendment V expounds upon our posterity. "No person shall be...deprived of life...without due process of law...." The Foundation for the National Archives[5] states that, "The Virginia Declaration of Rights strongly influenced Thomas Jefferson in writing the first part of the Declaration of Independence. It later provided the foundation for the Bill of Rights." The Virginia Declaration of Rights[6] states, " That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life…."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on Romans 13:1[7] describes the relationship between the rulers, the ruled, and the rule of law:

"In all nations of the earth there is what may be called a constitution-a plan by which a particular country or state is governed…. The civil governor, whether he be elective or hereditary, agrees to govern according to that constitution. Thus we may consider that there is a compact and consent between the governor and the governed, and in such a case, the potentate may be considered as coming to the supreme authority in the direct way of God's providence; and as civil government is of God, who is the fountain of law, order, and regularity, the civil governor, who administers the laws of a state according to its constitution, is the minister of God.

Nothing can justify the opposition of the subjects to the ruler but overt attempts on his part to change the constitution, or to rule contrary to law.

When the ruler acts thus he dissolves the compact between him and his people; his authority is no longer binding, because illegal; and it is illegal because he is acting contrary to the laws of that constitution, according to which, on being raised to the supreme power, he promised to govern. This conduct justifies opposition to his government…."

James Madison, in Federalist #51[8], recognized that government must be based upon a realistic view of human nature:

"But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

And in Federalist #55[9],Madison states that republican government promotes good and restrains evil (Jeremiah 17:9) better than any other form:

"As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form."

It is no surprise to find that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…." in Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)[10] described the major distinguishing feature of a republic: "The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, Benjamin Franklin responded to a question about what form of government they had agreed to. His answer was; "A republic if you can keep it."[11] We haven’t kept it! The republic of the United States has degenerated into a United State ruled by law-breaking men in the federal courts, and politicians whose state of ignorance is only equaled by their acts of cowardice, and lust for power.

In 2002 the Republican Congress, and President gave $60 million in taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood through Title X federal family-planning grants![12] The GOP Congress, and President in defiance of; 1)the "law written on their hearts;" 2) reason; 3) conscience; 4) the fundamental purpose of government stated in the Declaration of Independence, and Romans 13; 5) the Preamble of the Constitution, and the Fifth Amendment have been funding surgical abortions, chemical abortions, and the nation's largest perpetrators of child-murder-by-abortion, Planned Parenthood via Medicaid.[13] What in the name of the risen Son Of God who suffered and died for our transgressions are Christians doing voting for those people? There is no justification for Christians to vote for those who exist to transgress the rule of law, and suppress the truth in their unrighteous acts (Rom.1:18).

Untermensch, sub-human, or under-men was the dehumanizing label assigned to people regarded by the Nazis as so inferior that they were not human beings at all. It is worth noting that Nietzsche's Overman, or super-human was to overcome the traditional ethicist and create a new morality, by the triumph of will over conscience.[14] The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal convicted ten Nazi leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortions," an act which the Tribunal characterized as "a crime against humanity." As with their other crimes against humanity, the Nazis protested that "we were just following orders." Lieutenant General Richard Hildebrandt, the SS (Schutzstaffel) Chief of the RKFVD's Race and Settlement Office in Berlin, stated that "Up to now nobody had the idea to see in this interruption of pregnancy a crime against humanity."[15] The following excerpt from abortion survivor, Gianna Jessen, in her testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 20, 2000[16] describes what it is like to be born in a country with no regard for the rule of law, and is morally indistinguishable from Nazi Germany:

"I would like to say thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I count it no small thing to speak the truth. I depend solely on the grace of God to do this. I am 23 years old. I was aborted and I did not die. My biological mother was 7 months pregnant when she went to Planned Parenthood in southern California and they advised her to have a late-term saline abortion.

A saline abortion is a solution of salt saline that is injected into the mother’s womb. The baby then gulps the solution, it burns the baby inside and out and then the mother is to deliver a dead baby within 24 hours.

This happened to me! I remained in the solution for approximately 18 hours and was delivered ALIVE on April 6, 1977 at 6:00 am in a California abortion clinic. There were young women in the room who had already been given their injections and were waiting to deliver dead babies. When they saw me they experienced the horror of murder. A nurse called an ambulance, while the abortionist was not yet on duty, and had me transferred to the hospital. I weighed a mere two pounds. I was saved by the sheer power of Jesus Christ.

Ladies and gentleman I should be blind, burned.....I should be dead! And yet, I live! Due to a lack of oxygen supply during the abortion I live with cerebral palsy. [...] Adolph Hitler once said: ""The receptive ability of the great masses is only very limited, their understanding is small; on the other hand their forgetfulness is great. This being so, all effective propaganda should be limited to a very few points which in turn, should be used as slogans until the very last man is able to imagine what is meant by such words."" Today's slogans are: ""a woman's right to choose"" and "freedom of choice,"" etcetera.

There was once a man speaking from hell, recorded in Luke 16, who said, ""I am tormented in this flame."" Hell is real and so is Satan, and the same hatred that crucified Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago, still resides in the hearts of sinful people today. Why do you think this whole room trembles when I mention Jesus Christ? It is because He is real, and He is able to give the grace for repentance that we need as Americans. We are proud and boastful and we kill without shame."

It cannot be overstated that Christians should not vote for those who subsidize "crimes against humanity!" It cannot be repeated enough that unconscionable slogans should not be allowed to subvert the rule of law. There was a time in this nation’s history when patriots would rather part with life, and limb than part with "We hold the truths to be self-evident…" There was a time in history when preachers would rather part with their life, than deny the plainly written commands of God, but the time has come in this nation when preachers in large denominations denounce those in government who uphold the rule of law as plainly stated in the "supreme Law of the Land."

The plainly written language of the First, and Tenth Amendments refutes the myth that Roy Moore violated the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment states,"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…." Roy Moore has never been a member of Congress, and the Ten Commandments monument was never introduced in the U.S. Congress as a bill "respecting an establishment of religion." The first rule of statutory construction is to give a statute its plain meaning; if the meaning is clear, then there is nothing to construe! The fact that entire books[17] have been written explaining the plain meaning of those sixteen words in First Amendment indicates that the problem they seek to solve is far worse than mere illiteracy. Children can be taught to comprehend what they read, but men convinced against their ungodly rebellious will are of the same unconstitutional opinion still.

Many think that the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution has been repealed. That myth was refuted by Justice Clarence Thomas in US Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995)," ….where the Constitution is silent about the exercise of a particular power - that is, where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication - the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it."[18]

The federal judge who unlawfully ordered the Chief Justice of Alabama, Roy Moore, to remove the Ten Commandments monument violated the U.S. Constitution ordained by the People, and rebelled against the "ordinance of God." A raw recruit in the military can’t be prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to obey an unlawful order, but the Chief Justice of Alabama was removed from office for failing to obey an unlawful order from a rebellious federal judge. A national CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll indicated that 77% disapproved of Thompson's order to remove the monument.[19] The U.S. House of Representatives, in July 2003, overwhelmingly adopted John N. Hostettler's amendment to the Commerce Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill forbidding the expenditure of federal tax dollars to enforce the opinion of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Glassroth v. Moore.[20] The President should have announced that the unlawful order wouldn't be enforced, while the U.S. House commenced impeachment proceedings against U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson.

Why didn't it happen? The President has been in the habit of rewarding the evil of abortion with tax money. What would prevent him from punishing good behavior? Abortion clearly violates one of those commandments - "Thou shall not murder." Every state has laws against homicide, and thirty states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances,[21] but the President, by enforcing Roe, and Congress, by failing to pass We the People Act[22], are just as determined as any abortionist to prevent thirty states from enforcing laws that defy the unconstitutional majority opinion in Roe v Wade and progeny. Edgar Lee Masters claimed that Lincoln "argued that the Dred Scott decision was the result of a conspiracy on the part of the slavocracy to nationalize slavery,"[23] The testimony of Douglas W. Kmiec Professor Of Constitutional Law before Congress demonstrated that Roe v Wade was a conspiracy on the part of the abortocracy to nationalize abortion by " Justice Blackmun's own admission, the holding in Roe is more ""arbitrary"" preference than constitutional interpretation."[24] Dr. Bernard Nathanson, 1969 co-founder of the National Association for the Repeal of the Abortion Laws, corroborates that conclusion. "A truthful poll of opinion then would have found that most Americans were against permissive abortion. Yet within five years we had convinced the Supreme Court to issue the decision which legalized abortion throughout America in 1973 and produced virtual abortion on demand up to birth."[25]

Is it possible that many of these politicians, claiming to be Christian, can’t remember the difference between good and evil, and despise being reminded by the second half of the Decalogue? That reminder would force them to confront the fundamental purpose of government as expressed in Romans 13, and the Declaration of Independence which states, " WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men…are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life…. That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted…." Let those who are determined to forget, recall that Psa 9:17 states, "The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." At the beginning of his Templeton Address, Solzhenitsyn made that point. "Over half a century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of older people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia. Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."[26]

Why do Christians repeatedly vote for politicians who minimize (Rom 1:28 or 2ndTimothy 3:5) the difference between good and evil, and who can't recognize a self-evident truth as fundamental as the right to life that government is to secure by punishing those who murder? It is one thing for a politician, blinded by might, to fail to see the difference between right and wrong, but quite another for Christian conservative leaders and preachers to repeat their error. Those who denounced[27] Chief Justice Roy Moore for defying an unlawful order should heed the warning of Isaiah 5:20 "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Chapters 2 and 13 of Romans mention the word conscience. An article in the September, 2003 issue of Touchstone, "The Nightmares of Choice"[28] speaks to those who still have a conscience:

""I have fetus dreams, we all do here: dreams of abortions one after the other; of buckets of blood splashed on the walls; trees full of crawling fetuses,"" reported Sallie Tisdale of her time as a nurse in an abortion facility. Writing in Harper's magazine, she told of dreaming that two men grabbed her and dragged her away: ""Let's do an abortion,"" they said with a sickening leer, and I began to scream, plunged into a vision of sucking, scraping pain, of being spread and torn by impartial instruments that do only what they are bidden. I woke from this dream barely able to breathe and thought of kitchen tables and coat hangers, knitting needles striped with blood, and women all alone clutching a pillow in their teeth to keep the screams from piercing the apartment-house walls."

When politicians and federal judges rebel against the written Constitution, they are also resisting the ordinance of God. Preachers and Christian conservative leaders shouldn't follow them in their rebellion, and trample underfoot those in government who submit to the ordinance, and commandments of God. The first four Commandments reveal the existence of Higher Authority and Higher Law than the state. The preachers, politicians, and pundits leading the people to reject the rule of law revealed by the Most High God are inviting the rule of men. History reveals[29] it is an invitation that tyranny cannot refuse, and will eagerly hasten to accept.

Many in government may praise the rebellious preachers who resist the ordinance of God, but that praise is only temporary. Those who joined the rebellions of Myron Thompson, and Roe will have to defend their words, and actions before the Supreme Judge of World, as Jefferson described Him in the closing lines of the Declaration of Independence. He will have the final say, and no temporary earthly praise, or position will overrule His eternal condemnation.[30]

The Constitution Party is "working to restore our government to its Constitutional limits and our law to its Biblical foundation."[31] If America is going to be restored to the rule of law, and have the future its Founders intended, Christians are going to have to distinguish the difference between good[32] and evil. Christians are going to have to vote for those who will adhere to the rule of law, and Constitution; and not vote for those who make some nebulous reference to God with the sole intent of deceiving for political gain, as most of the Republican and Democrat politicians do.

If America has any hope of ever becoming "One Nation Under God…with liberty and justice for all," Christians must stop allowing federal courts to separate God from government.[33] According to Rabbi Daniel Lapin, "Those of us who venerate freedom, be we Jewish or Christian, be we religious or secularized, have no option but to pray for the health of Christianity in America. No other group possesses both the faith and the numbers sufficient to hold back the ever-encroaching, sometimes sinister, power of the state."[34]

According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to 01/28/05 is 295 million.[35] Total US adult population (age 18 & over) 220 million.[36] A Gallup Poll[37] conducted November 7-10, 2004 found that; "A third of adults, aged 18 and older are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word." 73 million adult Americans believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word. 120 million out of 204 million[38] eligible to vote, cast a ballot for president in the 2004 election. America has a minimum of 57 million voters who believe that the Bible is to be taken literally, word for word. Rabbi Daniel Lapin's assessment is correct. Christians need to realize that they have the numbers to restore the rule of law, but they lack the faith to do so. As long as they have more fear of Democrats than faith in God, the Republicans will continue to take advantage of them by running on the GOP platform to get elected, and then run away from it once in office.

Rehnquist dissent: "To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter." caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&amp;vol=410&invol=113

"Thus spake Zarathustra,"Friedrich Nietzsche, Introduction By Mrs Forster-Nietzsche. How Zarathustra Came Into Being. Nietzsche Archives, Weimar, December 1905. "Am I understood?...The overcoming of morality through itself-through truthfulness, the overcoming of the moralist through his opposite-THROUGH ME-: that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth."

Testimony Of Douglas W. Kmiec Professor Of Constitutional Law, University Of Notre Dame, before The Subcommittee On The Constitution, Committee Of The Judiciary, U.S. House Of Representatives April 22, 1996

"Death By Government," Chapter 2, Definition of Democide, R.J. Rummel "Democide is meant to define the killing by government as the concept of murder does individual killing in domestic society. Here intentionality (premeditation) is critical. This also includes practical intentionality. If a government causes deaths through a reckless and depraved indifference to human life, the deaths were as though intended. If through neglect a mother lets her baby die of malnutrition, this is murder.... Similarly, for example, as the Soviet government forcibly transported political prisoners to labor camps hundreds of thousands of them died at the hands of criminals or guards, or from heat, cold, and inadequate food and water. Although not intended (indeed, this deprived the regime of their labor), the deaths were still public murder. It was democide."

Saturday, January 15

"The Sierra Times is not affiliated with any political party. We consider ourselves independent, yet we have been labeled left-wing, right-wing, and everything in between. We try, whenever possible, to be fair in our news reporting, giving both sides of an issue the opportunity to be heard. This goes especially for our editorial commentaries.

Zealots, on the other hand, get little tolerance here. We find 'extremism' on either side to harm the overall debate. The lone exception is regarding the Constitution of the United States, where we must in fact admit that we are extremists in defending it."[1]

The mainstream liberal media operates according to an implied mission statement which could be summed up by stating: Regarding the Constitution of the United States, we must in fact admit that we are extremists in destroying it.

The mainstream conservative media tries to be fair and balanced, but the relevant evidence to convict them of zealously defending the Constitution is probably little more than sporadic, excited utterances of hearsay. The Sierra Times proclaims the Bill of Rights as "our 'mission statement'." How often do you read or hear the major personalities in the conservative media mentioning anything about the Constitution?

The Northwestern University Law School website contains a paper, "The Irrepressible Myth Of Marbury,"[2] presented by Michael S. Paulsen, Briggs & Morgan Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota Law School,[3] for the Constitutional Theory Colloquium Series, that was held on February 18, 2004.

Professor Paulsen begins his lengthy presentation with these introductory comments:

"Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison,1 the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional.

As befits the name of the court from which the doctrine emanates, the Supreme Court's power of judicial review - the power, in Chief Justice John Marshall's famous words in Marbury, ""to say what the law is""2 - is supreme. The Congress, the President, the states - indeed, ""We the People"" who ""ordain[ed] and establish[ed]""3 the Constitution - are all bound by the Supreme Court's pronouncements.

[….] Indeed, the Court's authority over constitutional interpretation by now must be regarded, rightly, as one of the pillars of our constitutional order, on par with the Constitution itself.

So the myth goes. But nearly every feature of the myth is wrong."

Professor Paulsen writes at length, because the voters are victims of unconstitutional, and extra-constitutional propaganda declaring the unelected, and unaccountable judges on the U.S. Supreme Court as the de facto tyrants of the United States. When, in fact, they are the de jure subordinates which the Constitution emphatically states that they are in the text and internal logic of that document which federal judges routinely defy in their unconscionable edicts permitting mass murder, euphemistically termed as ‘abortion,’ ‘choice,’ ‘privacy.’

The candid citizen, after examining the text, and internal logic of the U.S. Constitution, is led to only one inescapable conclusion about the federal judiciary that is stated in Federalist #78:

"The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.

This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power [1]; that it can never attack with success either of the other two;

[Footnote 1] The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: ""Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.''" ""Spirit of Laws.''" vol. i., page 186.

Madison confirms that conclusion in Federalist #51: "But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates."

In Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall derived the doctrine of judicial review from Hamilton's other comments in Federalist #78, the ‘Supremacy Clause’, and the ‘Loyalty Clause’ in the Constitution. Using the same simple logic as Marshall, Presidents Jefferson [4], Jackson [5], and Lincoln [6] expounded upon the doctrine of ‘Executive Review,’ which is as constitutional a doctrine as judicial review, with one supremely important difference. Congress can override a presidential veto, but the United States Supreme Court possesses no power to force any President to comply with their unconstitutional edicts. Thirty states recognize the unlawful killing of an unborn child as homicide in at least some circumstances,[7] and thirty states stand ready to overthrow Roe.[8] It is not the United States Supreme Court, and most certainly not the Constitution that bars them from doing so – and here is why: Congress can invoke Article 3 [9], and the President is not constitutionally, legally, or ethically mandated to enforce the criminally insane edicts of Roe and progeny. The pro-life, and pro-constitution constituency must stop blaming the Constitution, the judges, and the anti-constitutional constituency whose sole purpose in life is to destroy the Constitution, and push this nation beyond the "point of no return." The blame lies squarely where Federalist #51 puts it - with the Congress - and in the Office where "the buck stops,"[10] as President Truman's sign on his desk read.

When federal courts shred the very fabric of the Constitution as was violently done in Roe and subsequent cases; Congress and the President are obligated by their oath of loyalty to the Constitution - the Supreme Law - to immediately check those courts and restore Constitutional order - anything less is an absolute dereliction of Constitutional duty leading to tyranny.

When a common criminal commits homicide, does the press say that he 'overruled' or 'struck down' a state law forbidding same? The criminal broke the law, just as the criminals dressed in black robes bearing the title of Justice of the United Supreme Court do, every time they break state laws prohibiting abortion with the tacit approval of the press, and pro-life organizations. Could it be that the press and pro-life organizations rely on legal advice tainted with the "Myth of Marbury?" Does the pro-life constituency habitually rely on politicians who are indoctrinated with the same myth? Or is the politician who hides behind the long robes of the federal judiciary when voters demand adherence to the Constitution simply afraid, like the small child who hides behind his mother's long dress?

How do the citizens and their elected representatives know when the federal courts have erred? Justice Curtis answered that excellent question in his dissent from the majority in Dred Scott v. Sandford:

"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean." .

Even the press should be able to tell the difference between strict interoperation according to fixed rules, and penumbras emanating [11] from the feral fantasy of a federal judge. The President, each member of Congress, and every pro-life citizen should have a sign on their desk that reads, "The Myth Of Marbury Stops Here!"

The press would likely contend that, if the conservative politicians took the Supremacy Clause, and Loyalty Clause seriously, it would precipitate a constitutional crisis. But the average home schooled child who has been taught the Constitution by his liberty loving, patriotic parents would likely respond with - It would resolve the one we have been in since 1973!

The Honorable John N. Hostettler of Indiana on June 24, 2004, before the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. commenting on the issue of "Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction To Protect Marriage For The States," [12]described the plague of propaganda parroted, and perpetuated by the pernicious press:

"Mr. Chairman, as a nonlawyer, I count it a high privilege to serve as a Member of this Subcommittee. However, as a student of the United States Constitution, I would not be truthful if I said that I have always understood as perceived by this nonlawyer to be a disconnect between the plain wording and construction of the Constitution and the opinions handed down by the Federal judiciary as, quote, "''constitutional,''" end quote.

But this perceived disconnect was explained to me with such clarity by, and rightfully so, a lawyer when I read the testimony of Dr. Leo Graglia, before the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, of May 15, 1997. Dr. Graglia, who is the A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law at the University of Texas law school, profoundly observed that, quote, "''the first and most important thing to know about constitutional law is that it has virtually nothing to do with the Constitution,''" end quote. At that point, the scales fell from my eyes, and I realized that I cannot confuse what is taught in our Nation's law schools and what is expounded by so-called constitutional scholars on the 24-hour news talk shows with the work of folks like Madison, Hamilton, Jay, and Washington, and others at Philadelphia in 1787, or for that matter the first Congress in 1789 or the 39th Congress in 1866."

Congress has another member who understands the difference between the Constitution, and unconstitutional edicts supported by nothing more than the Marxist spin that Hostettler described. He represents the 14th District of Texas, and his name is Ron Paul.

Four years ago, he included this comment in "A Republic, If You Can Keep It."[13]

"At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: ""Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"" ""A republic if you can keep it"" responded Franklin."

There are many distinguishing features between a Republic with a written Constitution, and judicial oligarchy that deviates further from the rule of law with each evolving opinion. The major difference is that laws, not men govern a republic, whereas law-breaking men govern those in servile subjection to a judicial oligarchy. If the pro-life constituency was as serious about demanding legal protection for life as the homosexuals are about demanding legal protection for their life-style, Roe v Wade and progeny would have been relegated to the trash bin of unconstitutional opinion containing Dred Scott, and Korematsu.

In the world of politics, those who don't act serious will never be taken seriously. There is plenty of room for compromise on a host of issues, but there must be no compromise on the fundamental purpose of government in securing the right to life. Politicians promoting exceptions according to the slogan of 'safe, legal and rare,' are as responsible for breaking the law as the judges who join majority opinions promoting abortion.

In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.[14] On March 4, 2004, "Mr. Paul (for himself and Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland)" introduced "We the People Act (HR 3893 IH) to limit the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, and for other purposes."[15] The bill returns abortion, sodomy, and establishment clause issues to the states where competent citizens with consciences can mend their broken laws, and prevents the U.S. Supreme Court from breaking them.

We the People Act will probably be reintroduced in the 109th Congress prior to the summer session. The pro-life and pro-constitution constituency needs to make reintroduction a certainty, and passage a prerequisite for retaining office after the next elections.

I greatly appreciate Sierra Times commitment to the Constitution, and Christian Patriots For Life support of the scientific/medical, Biblical/ethical, and constitutional arguments for life. It is the only pro-life organization presently supporting We The People Act, and return to constitutional sanity. Christian Patriots For Life[16] is as committed to destroying the Blackmum Wall [17], as Reagan was to the destruction of the Berlin Wall.

REFERENCES THE CANDID CITIZEN CAN PRESENT TO THE PRESS & POLITICIANS:

#1 About The Sierra Times: An Internet Publication for Real Americans.

#4 Jefferson wrote in a letter in 1820: "You [William C. Jarvis] seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy . . . The constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party its members would become despots." 9

"The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."

#6 "[T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).

#12 The Honorable John N. Hostettler of Indiana on June 24, 2004, before the House of Representatives, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. commenting on the issue of "Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction To Protect Marriage For The States,"

Friday, January 7

Notes on the Testimony Of Martin H. Redish, Louis And Harriet Ancel Professor Of Law And Public Policy, Northwestern Law School, June 24, 2004

Professor Redish is a nationally renowned authority on the subject of Federal jurisdiction. He received his A.B. With honors, with highest honors, in political science from the University of Pennsylvania and his J.D. Magna cum laude from Harvard law school. He has been described in a review of his book, The Federal Courts in the Political Order, as quote, ''without a doubt the foremost scholar on issues of Federal court jurisdiction in this generation,'' unquote.Professor Redish is the author or coauthor of 70 articles and 13 books, including Federal Jurisdiction: Tensions in the Allocation of Federal Power. He was recently included on a list of the 100 most cited legal scholars of all time.

Section 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

There are absolutely no federal cases constitutionally excluded from state court jurisdictional authority. The State courts provide an adequate forum to interpret and enforce Federal law, including the Federal Constitution. State courts are empowered and obligated under article VI, clause 2, the supremacy clause, to interpret and enforce the Constitution. The Constitution didn't require Congress to create the lower federal courts (Madisonian Compromise). Congress did create the lower Federal courts immediately, but it is well established in the case law that that power to, from time to time, ordain and establish the lower Federal courts includes the power to abolish the lower Federal courts, and the greater power to abolish the lower Federal courts logically subsumes within it the power to leave the courts in existence, but limit their jurisdictions. The Supreme Court has proceeded on the logical assumption that if Congress possessed discretion not to create lower federal courts in the first place, it also has the power to abolish the lower federal courts. See, e.g., Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943); Sheldon v. Sill, 49 U.S. (8 How.) 441 (1850). Since it has been assumed that Congress possesses the authority to abolish the lower federal courts completely, the Court has assumed that it has the logically lesser power to ''abolish'' them as to only certain cases by limiting their jurisdiction.

Section 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1868), the Supreme Court recognized the unlimited authority explicitly authorized in the text. There are no internal constitutional limits, no limits in article III on Congress' power. Its power is plenary. There are external constitutional limits on this power; the Due Process Clause, and the equal protection directive in the fifth amendment apply, but are satisfied by state courts which Congress can't affect. The text, and internal logic of the Constitution allows Congress to combine its power over the article III lower courts and the Supreme Court under the exceptions clause, the end result is that it can completely exclude Federal judicial power over pretty much any issue, as long as the State courts remain available. The case law agrees with the Constitution in this respect.

The text and internal logic of the Constitution are the antidote for deceptive arguments claiming Congress hasn't the power which is explicitly stated, and which has been used with no objections of any U.S. Supreme Court. Congress' Article 3 power dosen't violate separation of powers, since the Constitution dosen't provide for Congress to adjucate a case, or dictatate a case, or enforce a decision, or overturn a decision. The states are bound by the Constitution, and not unconstitutional/extraconstitional federal judicial majority opinion.

"The judicial power of the United States is'' (by the plan of the convention) "to be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.''1

The arguments, or rather suggestions, upon which this charge is founded, are to this effect: "The authority of the proposed Supreme Court of the United States, which is to be a separate and independent body, will be superior to that of the legislature. The power of construing the laws according to the SPIRIT of the Constitution, will enable that court to mould them into whatever shape it may think proper; especially as its decisions will not be in any manner subject to the revision or correction of the legislative body.... But the errors and usurpations of the Supreme Court of the United States will be uncontrollable and remediless.'' This, upon examination, will be found to be made up altogether of false reasoning upon misconceived fact.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State. I admit, however, that the Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution. But this doctrine is not deducible from any circumstance peculiar to the plan of the convention, but from the general theory of a limited Constitution; and as far as it is true, is equally applicable to most, if not to all the State governments. There can be no objection, therefore, on this account, to the federal judicature which will not lie against the local judicatures in general, and which will not serve to condemn every constitution that attempts to set bounds to legislative discretion.

To avoid all inconveniencies, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 78It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power 1 The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: "Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.'' "Montesquieu: The Spirit of Laws.'' vol. i., page 186. The Avalon Project : Federalist No 51 But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. Amendment IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Thursday, January 6

In a December 16, 2004 National Review Online article A Pro-Life Mistake , Attorney Clark D. Forsythe of Americans United for Life recommended that State Legislators cease and desist in the introduction of legislation prohibiting abortion in their States. Attorney Forsythe counseled that since the Supreme Court is not pro-life (despite the fact that Republican Presidents appointed a super-majority, seven out of nine, of those Justices), it would be folly to introduce such legislation at this time. An old proverb comes to mind, "If not now, when?"

On November 2, 2004, the American electorate voted into office a Republican President, Republican House, Republican Senate and a majority of Republican Governors. The Supreme Court is made up of a super-majority of Republican appointees. We have, in America, undeniable Republican Party Rule. If the Republican Party is pro-life, now is the best and only time to effectuate any real pro-life legislation.

Those pro-lifers who refused to support the reelection effort of Mr. Bush were told that the election was about the judiciary and the Supreme Court - without good appointments, we'll have another 32 years of Roe v. Wade, we were told. Prior to the election, and since, was there any evidence from the White House that there is any intention to nominate pro-life justices? In fact, has not Mr. Bush nominated several abortion supporting judges to the lower benches, and wasn't his campaigning for Alren Specter (who has promised to block all pro-life Justices) evidence that Mr. Bush has no intention of creating a pro-life judiciary and of eliminating legal abortion in America.

Perhaps we must come to grips with the fact that with Republican President, Republican Senate, Republican House and majority Republican appointees on the Supreme Court, 4,000 dead babies daily is the best the GOP has to offer. Given the President's remarks in the third Presidential debate, that "reasonable people can come together and put good law in place that will help reduce the number of abortions," we ought not be looking to the Republican Party as the vehicle by which abortion will be made illegal. All the big-government GOP has to offer is regulations that mightreduce the number of abortions. I know from a statistical point, 1,000 puréed babies daily would be "better" than 4,000 diced-up babies, but it is not better for the 1,000 the President has permitted to die on his watch.

I question why the director of Americans United for Life (AUL) would council his fellow colleagues in the pro-life movement to refrain from introducing legislation that would prohibit abortions. I can't help but believe that he shares the opinions of the Republican Party - and the President specifically - regarding minimizing abortions, and he is not committed to ending legal abortion in America. The AUL offers model legislation guides to pro-life lobbyists on Abortion Clinic Regulations, Cloning, Crimes Against the Unborn Child Act, Human Embryo Research, Heath Care Rights of Conscience Act, Parental Involvement for Minors Seeking Abortion, Physician-Assisted Suicide and Informed Consent Legislation. Not a one of the AUL eight recommended legislative strategies decries the legality of abortion. If, and frankly since, abortion is immoral and unlawful, it cannot be regulated without us acquiring the same bloody hands that the pro-abortion lobbyists have. Regulating abortion concedes its legality, and assumes that abortion is here to stay as a Constitutionally secured right. Apparently this is the best the Republican-minded pro-lifers have to offer - to concede defeat before the battle begins. Compromise requires that you be willing to accept half a loaf, we are told. Then the GOPers ask for a quarter loaf, and get about an eighth. Why has no one thought to ask for a loaf and a half? Preemptive concession - in this case that abortion is legal and will remain such - is the rule of day.

Additionally, regulating abortion creates new federal regulative programs, requires funding and oversight, and permits the pro-life movement to remain on its high horse demanding more federal intervention in abortion related causes. Keeping abortion legal for nearly 32 years now is quite possibly the best fund-raising strategy any lobbyist organization could have ever conceived.

It is due to this politically impotent view that I am not a member of the Republican Party. When you belong to the political machine, as Attorney Forsythe and his Americans United for Life, the National Right to Life and other compromisers satisfied with being the reasonable people the President suggested would come together and pass good laws permitting a certain number of abortions, you lose your taste for victory. What Mr. Bush, Attorney Forsythe, the AUL and others have effectively said is that they want abortion to remain safe, legal and rare. But, if every pregnancy resulted in a natural end (either birth or miscarriage), but abortion was still legal, the pro-life movement would have lost the battle, and the pro-abortion "rights" advocates would have won.

The GOP and the pro-life lobbyists have demonstrated their lack of commitment to the unborn, and they must, therefore, be opposed. They are no longer the friend of the unborn, and they are no longer our friends if they are unwilling to expend the political capital we have given them to protect the unborn. Parties and lobbyists are vehicles to advance a cause – if they stop advancing, it is time for us to find or create one that will.

The crux of Attorney Forsythe's argument (I'm not picking on him since in reality the grand majority of these "pro-life lobby" organizations would contend the same as he) is this: Legislatures, don't expend in 2005 the political capital received in 2004 since the courts will oppose you, and you will be slapped with an attorney's fees bill from the ACLU.

Legislators, if I may humbly submit to you an alternative to the preemptive concession of Attorney Forsythe: If you fail to act, you will be slapped with a bill for the blood of the unborn you have permitted to be shed in your State. As State Legislatures, you can interpose between the Judicial Usurpation of Roe and the unborn babies in the womb. Since Roe was decided unconstitutionally and fraudulently, it is void ab initio and invalid as against the States - but you must be willing to make and stand by that argument.

As a party to the Contract of the United States Constitution, you have an absolute right to insist upon compliance to it from the other Party, namely the Federal Government. Go right ahead, declare abortion illegal - you have, after all, also taken an Oath to the United States Constitution. To submit to Roe in your jurisdiction is to commit perjury of your Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

The only question left is this: If the Republicans elected into office are willing to make that stand, will the leaders of the Party and the pro-life movement support it? If not, and frankly my hopes are not very high, or if they are not even willing to raise Interposition as a remedy against a Federal usurpation of power, it is time to conclude that neither the Republican Party, nor the pro-life lobbyists, are committed to ending legal abortion in America.

Republicans Offer the Unborn 32 More Years of Roe v. Wade, December 17, 2004, by Scott T. Whiteman, Esq.

Nearly all of American constitutional law today rests on a myth. The myth, presented as standard history both in junior high civics texts and in advanced law school courses on constitutional law, runs something like this: A long, long time ago - 1803, if the storyteller is trying to be precise - in the famous case of Marbury v. Madison,1 the Supreme Court of the United States created the doctrine of "judicial review." Judicial review is the power of the Supreme Court to decide the meaning of the Constitution and to strike down laws that the Court finds unconstitutional.

As befits the name of the court from which the doctrine emanates, the Supreme Court's power of judicial review - the power, in Chief Justice John Marshall's famous words in Marbury, "to say what the law is"2 - is supreme. The Congress, the President, the states - indeed, "We the People" who "ordain[ed] and establish[ed]"3 the Constitution - are all bound by the Supreme Court's pronouncements. Thus, the decisions of the Supreme Court become, in effect, part of the Constitution itself. Even the Supreme Court is bound by its own precedents, at least most of the time. Occasionally the Court needs to make landmark decisions that revise prior understandings, in order to keep the Constitution up to date with the times. When it does, that revised understanding becomes part of the supreme law of the land. Other than through the adoption of a constitutional amendment, however, the Supreme Court is the final authority on constitutional change.

Judicial review (the myth continues) thus serves as the ultimate check on the powers of the other branches of government, and is one of the unique, crowning features of our constitutional democracy. The final authority of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution has withstood the test of time. It has survived periodic efforts by the political branches, advanced during times of crisis (the Civil War and the Great Depression) or out of short-term political opposition to initially unpopular or controversial rulings (like Brown v. Board of Education4 and Roe v. Wade5), to undermine this essential feature of our constitutional order. Through it all - Dred Scott6 and the Civil War, the New Deal Court-packing plan, resistance to Brown, the Nixon Tapes case,7 the Vietnam War, the quest to overrule Roe v. Wade - the authority of the Supreme Court as the final interpreter of the Constitution has stood firm. Indeed, the Court's authority over constitutional interpretation by now must be regarded, rightly, as one of the pillars of our constitutional order, on par with the Constitution itself.